What Relativists say is, The man on the Earth, and the rocket man will shoot a light beam at the same time when the rocket passes the starting point.The man in the rocket will see the light in the rocket travelling at C '''''IN HIS ROCKET RIGHT UP TO THE ROCKETS' NOSE''''', BUT OUTSIDE THIS ROCKET the OBSERVER ON EARTH WILL SEE, THE LIGHT BEAM STAYS AT THE TAIL OF THE ROCKET.

THE ROCKET MAN WILL ALSO SEE THE LIGHT OUTSIDE HIS ROCKET, THAT WAS FIRED FROM THE EARTH, TRAVELLING AT C RUSHING PAST HIM TO THE MOON, BUT ON EARTH THE LIGHT SEEMS TO TRAVEL WITH THE ROCKET.

Do you see the incorrect interpretation of Lorenz?

Logged

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Heck pal,I never said light travels at 0C!I said, it will seems as if light travels at 0C.

That is an impossible observation according to special relativity; if their measuring stick is one light nanosecond (c·(1 ns)) long, it will take exactly one nanosecond for any light they put it against to travel along it. The light will not even seem to go 0c. They will see it go the full 1c.

Furthermore, yours is exactly the kind of scenario the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect in real life, but did not. And they were quite thorough. Their aparatus was quite sensitive enough to detect it were it present. They tested it in all sorts of conditions, at various times during the day, and year. If there was any "aether wind" (which is what your notion is compeletely congruent to), they would have detected it, but they never did.

Quote

Let me make it simpler.

No. Let's not. You've already dumbed down your example past the point where it's too simple even for you. I understand what you're saying, it's just plain WRONG.

Anyway, gotta run, so I'll respond to your other posts later.

Logged

Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!(she bites!)Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login"An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature's answer."Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1949)

Well, this is wrong.Light will travel at C from its point of origin.If the rocket travels at C, the light in the rocket will actually standing still.

No, it will not. Light is made of electromagnetic waves. Light "standing still" will result in a static electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, which in Maxwell's equations is an absurd result, and cannot be derived using Maxwell's equations. This is because magnetic fields in a vacuum are generated by changing electric fields, and vice versa. The way light propagages means that, if it were possible to move with the light wave, then this is exactly what we'd see — a static, unchanging magnetic and electric wave with no source in a vacuum. And again, there's no allowance in Maxwell's equations for the speed of the observer; carrying through with the equations yields a result that demands an electromagnetic wave propagating at c, even when moving at c yourself.

Physicists in the nineteenth century knew this. Yes, it was mind-blowing, but it is also what Maxwell's equations were telling them, and those equations were proving their worth otherwise. They knew that a static electromagnetic wave is not permitted by Maxwell's equations; if it were, Einstein would never needed to come up with special (and general) relativity in the first place! Physicists were coming up with ways around this precisely because they knew what you described above is not possible.

Nobody has ever observed a light wave "standing still." Nobody has ever made any observation that supports that proposition, either. Again, if it did, the Michelson-Morley experiment would have yielded a positive result in detecting the aether wind. The aether wind would be effectively light being slowed down a bit by motion. But no, there was no detection even with thorough testing over a wide range of velocities.

You have not given me any reason to believe that you are correct, while on my side I have plenty of reason to believe that you are incorrect. Yours are just assertions. You simply assert that a light wave can be stationary from some observer, even though currently physics has firmly established that it isn't true, and as such only a physical experiment could knock that principle over.

TL;DR — the existence of special relativity is a result of physics knowing, even in the nineteenth century, that a stationary electromagnetic wave is an absurdity. Your proposition wouldn't even survive physics pre-Einstein.

Quote

This is the great distortion of the interpretation of Lorenz.

You keep asserting that, but I have yet to see you use it even once. How could you know what I say is "distorted" if you don't even bother finding out what it says?

I don't think you even know what the Lorentz transformation is, or what it implies. Here, let me demonstrate that in all frames of reference, where v < c, the speed of a light beam will always be observed at going c, using the Lorentz transformation that I supposedly don't understand.

The Lorentz transformation is for some velocity v in the x+ direction:

t' = γ(t - xv/c²)x' = γ(x - vt)y' = yz' = z

where γ = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Let's ignore the y and z axis. Similar algebra will reveal that other direction will yield a similar result.

In frame S' (moving at v in S), the two points are P'0 = (x'0, t'0), and P'1 = (x'1, t'1), and ΔP' = (x'1 - x'1, t'1 - t'0). Using the Lorentz transformation on these two points and a little algebra reveals that ΔP' = (γ(Δx-vΔt), γ(Δt-vΔx/c²).

Oh, look at that! As I asserted, a particle that has velocity c in one frame of reference will have velocity c in another frame of reference. Of course, if v = c, the Lorentz transformation blows up on you (it divides by zero), so there can be no Lorentz transformation into a frame going at c in any other frame.

So, you are catagorically NOT using a Lorentz transformation. Vectors traveling at c are eigenvalues of this transformation — they remain unchanged up to being stretched or squished; ergo, if any particle traveling at c in one frame do not travel at c in another frame, you have not used a Lorentz transformation.

Which is basically what's been happening.

Quote

The light fired at the tail of a rocket traveling at C, will stay at the tail!

Mere repetition of the same faulty reasoning.

The rocket cannot travel at c. I've been generous up to this point in allowing this sloppy reasoning, but I'm putting my foot down here. The rocket has mass. Only massless particles can travel at c. Ergo, the rocket is traveling strictly less than c, even though it may be traveling arbitrarily close to c. Therefore, in any physically possible scenario the light will eventually reach the nose, even by your ignorant argument.

We have never observed a mass-bearing particle traveling at c. Everything we have observed about particles with mass reveals that they cannot travel at c. Furthemore, only mass-bearing particles can travel slower than c. Massless particles are never observed traveling at any speed other than c. Because rockets occasionally travel slower than c (like standing still on a rocket pad), they must be mass-bearing and therefore speeds of c are not possible for them.

The above is a summary of what is known about c and particles that can and cannot travel at c. The characteristic that makes this difference is mass. The rocket, which has mass, cannot travel at c.

Again, the Lorentz transformation preserves vectors traveling at c. Furthermore, there are no Lorentz transformations taking a frame into one traveling at c.

Quote

This is the characteristic of light!It travels at C which is 300 000 km per hour(about)

Yes, it does, in all reference frames. This includes the rocket, so it must also see light go at c. QED.

Indeed, not only is it the characteristic of light, but it also is the maximum speed that any interaction can occur. It's specialness goes beyond merely being the speed of propagation of the waves of a particular field — it's one of the big damn important constants.

Quote

Now, reality has it that the light beam of the rocket, as well as the one from the earth observer will arrive at the same time on the moon.therefore, the rocket man will see the point of the light beam and the rocket light beam travelling with him, and all 3 arrive at the same instance at the moon.

You talk about reality, yet immediately speak of an unreal scenario.

Again, I refer you to Maxwell's equations which asserts that static electromagnetic waves cannot exist, and therefore a electromagnetic wave seen to be standing stationary is not possible. Even by 19th century standards of physics, your assertion would be false, because if it were true, there would be no special relativity for you to argue against.

Quote

Therefore, the Rocketman will not be able to measure light at C, because light will slow down in his point of view.He knows that the light is travelling at C, but from ITS SOURCE!NOT FROM THE ROCKET'S SPEED ADDED TO C!

The rocketman will observe that the light going at c, even in his frame. It will take the light about one nanosecond by his clock to traverse his wooden 12" ruler. He may think that he is measuring v + c, but any experimenter outside the rocket and seeing the rocket move at v will also observe the light moving at c, by his own rulers and his own clock. I know this is wierd, but it is what special relativity asserts, and what happens in real life by any experiment we care to perform.

What Relativists say is, <snip>THE ROCKET MAN WILL ALSO SEE THE LIGHT OUTSIDE HIS ROCKET, THAT WAS FIRED FROM THE EARTH, TRAVELLING AT C RUSHING PAST HIM TO THE MOON, BUT ON EARTH THE LIGHT SEEMS TO TRAVEL WITH THE ROCKET.

More repetition of the same old crap. No, it won't. No "Relativist" will say this. They're called physicists, by the way, and they have forgotten more physics than you will ever know. They are very clear on this, and I have used the Lorentz transformation to demonstrate this: there is no frame of reference that will ever observe light going at any speed other than c.

The rocket cannot travel at c. Ergo, your scenario is impossible. Period. It must travel at less than c, which means that even by your logic, the light beam does not stay at the tail of the rocket because the light beam is still faster, even if only marginally so.

Quote

Do you see the incorrect interpretation of Lorenz?

I have seen lots of assertions from you that I have the incorrect interpretation of the Lorentz transformation, but I have yet to see you demonstrate it, just like in your other threads. Above, you will find a demonstration that light traveling at c from one frame will also be traveling at c in another. So tell me again how I have the "incorrect interpretation of Lorentz."

Better yet, demonstrate this, instead of simply spewing about it. Please have this demonstration in your next rounds of posts, or I win.

Your assertions are supported by no experiment or observation, and there is plenty of experiment and observation to the contrary. If a hypothesis doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG. Special relativity, and the constancy of the speed of light in all frames, by all means of measurement, is the foundation of all modern physics and is not going to be dismissed by some crank on the internet with a messiah complex.

About thirty years ago, CalTech did two remarkable series, The Mechanical Universe and The Mechanical Universe and Beyond. The second series has three episodes that explain Einstein, time dilation, length contraction, and the apparent increase in mass of moving objects in as clear and cogent a manner as I've ever seen, and I have read and calculated a lot on the matter. Spoiler alert for our little church mouse, there is no reference to any of it coming from any bible.

So, here are the relevant episodes, on: The Lorentz TransformationYou are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

I think it's pretty clear that our little MT doesn't know what a frame of reference is and why they're so important, and seems very much to think that a Lorentz transformation produces an illusionary world where things only seem distorted and wierd, but actually things are all hunky dory.

So let's tell a tale of physics.

In the four hundred or so years after Newton, physics has derived many many laws. Laws of mechanics, laws of chemistry, laws of hydrodynamics, etc. All of them shared one particular thing in common: as far as could be determined, the laws of nature did not care about the absolute position of any object, how they were oriented absolutely, what absolute time an experiment was performed in, or (most importantly for our story) how fast the whole experiment is traveling through space. At best, only relative distances, orientations, times, and motions mattered. You could always expand the scope of an experiment to the point where you end up with a system that could be as a unit freely relocated, reoriented, advanced and retarded in time, and given a boost in any given direction and magnitude, and the experiment would operate in the same way.

Translations in time and space do not cause the physical laws to work differently. Rotations in space do not cause the physical laws to work differently. Using a different system of measurement does not cause the physical laws to work differently. When a transformation does not change how the physical laws work, it is said that the laws of physics are invariant under the transformation.

The You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login applies a boost to a physical system or experiment, making it move in a uniform motion in a particular direction. The physics known in the 19th century did not work differently between two states of affairs related by a Galilean transformation, with one singular exception (more on that later).

Each state of affairs, that could be related to each other by any of the above means of transformation, is a frame of reference. If S and S' are frames of references related by some transformation under which the laws are invariant, you can transform all of S into S' and all the physics we deduced for S will still work in S' without referring to S at all, and the results of applying those physical laws to S' will translate back to S as if you had worked in S all along. That's a very powerful concept and it is what makes frames of reference so important in physics instead of the mere mathematical curiosities that MT seems to think they are. If an object or entity in a particular frame of reference is measured to be stationary in that reference frame, then it can be treated in that frame as exactly that, regardless of what its state of motion in any other reference frame. In this sense, a reference frame is entire in and of itself, and all reference frames are equivalent to each other in the eyes of physics. Thus, since Newton, evidence had been mounting for the case of the principle of relativity, as these invariances of the laws of physics came to be known.

But with the Galilean transformation, you can have a situation where you can observe a light wave traveling at zero velocity relative to you by choosing an appropriate boost. By the principle of relativity, you should be able to treat this situation as if there really is a light wave not moving in space and all of the laws of physics will work just as well on it as it does according to an observer that observes that light propagates at the usual c, but it doesn't. Maxwell's laws don't allow for a light wave to propagate at any speed other than c, and without an aether wind to take up the burden, the Galilean transformation leads to an unphysical notion: a stationary, frozen electromagnetic wave in a vacuum — something that Maxwell's equations does not allow to exist. If you had to remember that the light is "actually" traveling at c, even though the frame doesn't measure it going at c, then it destroys the principle of relativity.

That's why when Albert Michelson and Edward Morley failed to find the aether wind, it was a big deal. It appeared that Maxwell's equations and light were the sole exception to the principle of relativity with respect to boosts in velocity. When James Clerk Maxwell first found that his equations would produce a constant speed of light, he and others were confident that it was merely because that constant was with respect to the aether in which light propagated, like the way a sound wave propagates through air. Had aether been found, the experiment would have vindicated the Galilean transformation as the proper transform for relating between reference frames of different boosts, but it didn't, leaving physics with a quandary.

Now we know that it is the Lorentz transformation that is the proper transform between reference frames related by a boost, and the Galilean transformation is merely the low-velocity approximation. The principle of relativity allows us to with confidence state that we fairly well know the physical laws we have derived on Earth, because our true spatial and temporal coordinates, our true orientation within the universe, and our true velocity through that universe are all irrelevant for deriving the physical laws, if those attributes even have an ontological meaning in the first place.

If there are any lengths and times that are God's length and time, it is proper length and proper time; duration and distance as deduced through coordinate time and space are all things of man. MT is trying to assert that the time experienced by a near-c rocket is one second based upon an imaginary line drawn between the rocket and his stationary clock over the shipboard clock that is actually measuring time along the rocket's path. While that imaginary line, constructed by man, may have some usefulness, it's laughable to think that it reveals a truth superior than the reality of proper time (God's time). Quite bizarre.

That is an impossible observation according to special relativity; if their measuring stick is one light nanosecond (c·(1 ns)) long, it will take exactly one nanosecond for any light they put it against to travel along it. The light will not even seem to go 0c. They will see it go the full 1c.

Furthermore, yours is exactly the kind of scenario the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to detect in real life, but did not. And they were quite thorough. Their aparatus was quite sensitive enough to detect it were it present. They tested it in all sorts of conditions, at various times during the day, and year. If there was any "aether wind" (which is what your notion is compeletely congruent to), they would have detected it, but they never did.No. Let's not. You've already dumbed down your example past the point where it's too simple even for you. I understand what you're saying, it's just plain WRONG.

Anyway, gotta run, so I'll respond to your other posts later.

Well, I am of the opinion that you are so brainwashed about the incorrect characteristics of light which you were forced to believe, that you obviously ascribe things to the Mickelson Morley experiment that are incorrect.

Lets see, they took a beam of light entering from a specific direction, split the beam on a reflective mirror to have a 90 degree detour on one half, and a 180 degree detour on the other.They then checked to see if the light beams showed distortion when combined again.Now, this will prove that light travelling in 2 different directions are influenced by anything such as "AETHER WIND" that might be travelling from one direction, and would have slowed down one of the beams resulting in a wave distortion, and evidence of Aether Winds!

Cool, they proved there was no Aether winds, and light travels at C, no matter which direction.

Now, please give me the experiments where it showed that light will travel at C in whatever reference frame it is observed!

Mickelson Morley's experiment does nothing of this sort.

Look at this.Goddard have sent lasers to satellites, one orbiting the moon, over a distance of 240 000 miles, as the satellite travels at over 3 200 miles an hour.In this instance they must allow and calculate where the satellite will exactly be.The satellite must be fired in advance of the position to the satellite, and as the laser travels to the satellite, the satellite will actually move in front of the laser.

Whats more, the reflected photons will now travel back to the earth, but the light beam must be positioned from the satellite to travel to a point on the earth again.

Great, now what does this mean?Light does not travel in straight lines, but in a 3 D spherical shape.One piece of the sphere's surface can not travel faster than any other point of the spherical surface, but is dependent upon C from ITS' POINT OF ORIGIN!

THEREFORE, THE MICKELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVED THAT THERE IS NO AETHER, AN THAT THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT BEAM THAT WAS SPLIT IN 2, WAS AT THE MIROR.

AND THEY PROVED THAT LIGHT WILL TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED FROM IT'S SOURCE, NO MATTER IN WHICH DIRECTION YOU SEND IT.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 02:54:18 AM by Mousetrap »

Logged

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Light travels at C in a vacuum, FROM ITS SOURCE.it travels on a 360 degree SPHERE.if a light is flashed when a satellite travels at 7 000 Km per hour, the light will travel at C, FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN.actually, the satellite will travel away from the point of origin of the flash of light, and will experience the Doppler effect and will observe the light as red-shift.

If the satellite would ever be able to achieve C+ speeds, the satellite will travel outside of the Light sphere, and will not see the flash, untill the satellite slows down, and allows the light to gain.

Now, the exact same will happen when a flash of light was set off on the satellite.

The light will travel at C from it's point of origin.If there was 2 flashes of light, one on the satellite, and one on another satellite that passed the first from an opposite direction, at the same point (perhaps a few meters from each other for argument) both satellites will see the light at red-shift.

Now, this is the nice thing about Physics and Light.

With the use of Light, one will be able to determine which satellite is travelling, and which is stationary.Flash both lights on the satellites at the same time they pass, and read the red shift, or Blue shift.If one satellite was stationary, It will measure accordingly, and if the other was travelling at 0.5 C, it will measure both lights at Red shift.

This is exactly as we observe far off galaxies, where they are travelling away in relation to us.Their light is measured in our frame of reference as red shifted, and our light at normal C.

Therefore, Newton was correct, Einstein not.

Logged

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

But with the Galilean transformation, you can have a situation where you can observe a light wave traveling at zero velocity relative to you by choosing an appropriate boost. By the principle of relativity, you should be able to treat this situation as if there really is a light wave not moving in space and all of the laws of physics will work just as well on it as it does according to an observer that observes that light propagates at the usual c, but it doesn't. Maxwell's laws don't allow for a light wave to propagate at any speed other than c, and without an aether wind to take up the burden, the Galilean transformation leads to an unphysical notion: a stationary, frozen electromagnetic wave in a vacuum — something that Maxwell's equations does not allow to exist. If you had to remember that the light is "actually" traveling at c, even though the frame doesn't measure it going at c, then it destroys the principle of relativity.

I had to find one discussion point in an attempt to show you what I mean.Here we have the problem with SR and GR in a nut shell.1. the Galilean transformation adds velocities up.2. the Lorentz transformation shows how something behaves once it reaches huge speeds that can be measured in fractions of C.And to which I agree.

But it actually shows you how light will appear to look from another time frame, in the observed time frame.And it does not mean that Time and Length changed at all, but your interpretation of what you would observe about light is what you incorrectly now think is the error.

Never did I say that Light can be stopped.Light can never be stationary.But travelling at C, It will appear to be just that!

You see, this is what Lorenz and Einstein missed out on.They presumed that it is impossible for us to determine if light, just as stationary objects, is moving or not.

If this is the case, then SR and GR is 100% correct.

However, the total contradiction about this characteristic of light is evident once we look at all the different claims made by physicists.

For instance, even Stephen Hawking in his publications claims that light travels at C, and if you are travelling at C, and is not in the 3 dimensional sphere of light. (from its source obviously)[added by me], you will ever see that light!

Therefore, I conclude that Light has it's source, and Must travel from A to B, A being the origin, and B being our position.

Sorry pal, you can not claim that light will have 2 measurable speeds, one where you travel at say 0.5C, and one stationary. and both will measure C.

I know the Lorentz transformation by heart, and do not need you to give me the formulas.I need just one thing from you.

What, in your mind, does the Lorentz transformation measure.

Do it simple like, take a vehicle that travels to the left at XV.Shoot a laser forward.shoot a laser backward.now add both together.

Then explain why.and and I need to see where and what you see, that I dont.

« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 05:16:08 AM by Mousetrap »

Logged

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

I had to find one discussion point in an attempt to show you what I mean.Here we have the problem with SR and GR in a nut shell.1. the Galilean transformation adds velocities up.2. the Lorentz transformation shows how something behaves once it reaches huge speeds that can be measured in fractions of C.And to which I agree.

But it actually shows you how light will appear to look from another time frame, in the observed time frame.And it does not mean that Time and Length changed at all, but your interpretation of what you would observe about light is what you incorrectly now think is the error.

Never did I say that Light can be stopped.Light can never be stationary.But travelling at C, It will appear to be just that!

You see, this is what Lorenz and Einstein missed out on.They presumed that it is impossible for us to determine if light, just as stationary objects, is moving or not.

If this is the case, then SR and GR is 100% correct.

However, the total contradiction about this characteristic of light is evident once we look at all the different claims made by physicists.

For instance, even Stephen Hawking in his publications claims that light travels at C, and if you are travelling at C, and is not in the 3 dimensional sphere of light. (from its source obviously)[added by me], you will ever see that light!

Therefore, I conclude that Light has it's source, and Must travel from A to B, A being the origin, and B being our position.

Sorry pal, you can not claim that light will have 2 measurable speeds, one where you travel at say 0.5C, and one stationary. and both will measure C.

I know the Lorentz transformation by heart, and do not need you to give me the formulas.I need just one thing from you.

I think this image will clarify everything that light has an origin, and travels at a certain speed.Therefore, to say that if one travels in the same direction of light, light will still be measured at C from your position, is incorrect.Frankly, just as gravity is a fact, so it is that light has an original start off point, and any time frame must be in reference to that point of origin.

Where is the way where light dwells (travels)? and as for darkness, where is its place (stationary)? Job 38:19

« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 06:18:10 AM by Mousetrap »

Logged

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.